Feedback on secondary architecute promotion requirements draft

[Matthew Garrett]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 01:34:00AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 04/19/2012 01:22 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > No, because it's not a requirement. In theory an SA could be perfectly 
> > suited for PA promotion without any real involvement with the Fedora 
> > community. It'd just be massively more difficult.
> 
> I think there's a missunderstanding here. I don't recall suggesting that
> you need to add anything about "real involvement" to the list, just that
> if you feel certain specifics are required around meeting format,
> etiquette, and so forth, that would be useful to note down.

I don't think they're required. I'm not in any position to veto 
decisions you've made. The relevant point here is that having public 
meetings makes it more likely that you'll get useful feedback from 
others regarding decisions you've made, and that makes it less likely 
that anyone will have objections when you propose ARM as a primary 
architecture. If you choose to do that without making it easy for other 
people to offer you advice then you're free to. I just think it'd be a 
mistake.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org